Dixon, you're the hollywood insider around here. I have a question.

[perks]

So I'm watching one of my favorite shows, the cheesy Inside the Actor's Studio. Ed Norton is the guest and he's talking about his career. He mentioned something about writing the bulk of the dialogue for "Frida" and that he didn't get the writing credit because he wasn't a member of the Writer's Guild.

My questions...

Why would that matter?

And how often does this occur? Is it common practice?

How usual is it for me to think someone who has the writing credit actually wrote it when the case may be that someone else entirely that isn't a member of the Guild might have written it?

 

[RawHumor]

Ahhhh... Hollywood unions. So sweet.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Okay, here's the thing. The Writer's Guild is HUGE on making sure the right people get the right credit. If Ed Norton actually wrote a piece of the screenplay, he would get credit AND membership in the Writers Guild.

I don't know the Frida story, or what he's talking about, but most likely Norton got a script he improved around. Although improving is considered writing on your feet, it is NOT the same thing as writing the screenplay, and you don't get a screenwriting credit for that. Norton still worked within the framework of a writer's creation. It is understood that dialogue and scene descriptions change during production, and that these changes may come from anywhere. But unless you actually sit down and produce pages oof screenplay (and you have to produce a good percentage of the entire script -- I think it's close to 20%), you don't get credit from the Guild.

Instead, what the Guild offers are other credits like "Some Material Provided By" or "Based on an idea by" or something like that. If Norton didn't even get that kind of credit, and he absolutely would if he deserved it, then he's talking out of his hat. Improving your dialogue does not count as writing. It counts as acting. Writing is more than just figuring our what people are going to say, it's creating an entire dramatic arc. Most of the "writing" is the structure, not the dialogue. Anyone who merely creates things for people to say isn't so much "writing" as much as he's "typing".

There are all kinds of rules about how credit is placed, even on the title page of the screenplay. Depending on what you did and when and how much your name could either go below the title, or after someone else's name with a comma, or with an "&" symbol, or on another line -- they all have different meanings.

But, to answer your question, yes, generally every film you see is "written" in a collaborative atmosphere, with everyone from the director to the costume girl making changes and suggestions. It's the AMOUNT of work you do on the script that garners you credit.

 

[perks]

Hmmmmm...

I appreciate your candor. I wouldn't have asked if he hadn't seemed so adamant that he'd written it. By "it" I mean, I'm trying to remember, I think he said he wrote "all of the dialogue that you see in the movie".

Would editing out the majority of the screenplay to include only the dialogue that one person wrote matter in the credit?


He's seemed visibly upset about the whole deal, even Lipton brought it up like he was being given the shaft.

It seems like there is more of an undercurrent there. All I know is that it doesn't feel so cut and dried. I want the whole story.

Do you have a hypothesis?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If he actually "wrote" the movie, or even a huge portion of it, he can appeal to the Writers Guild, which is a fair and honest organziation that exhaustively goes out of its way to assign proper credit. Is he appealing, or is he just whining on TV?

It's not hard to figure out who wrote what. Scripts under production are first registered with the Guild, and so are subsequent re-writes. It's easy enough for the Guild to take a look at the original script the writer and producers filed with them, and then look at the film. This kind of stuff doesn't require a Warren Commission. The truth will out, if he asks for it. Is he asking for it?

My feeling is that he most certianly didn't "write all the dialogue". And, to be real here, even if he DID rewrite every singel word in the screenplay, it's still a rewrite of material already written. He didn't write his stuff out of the clear blue sky, he had a roadmap. And it's generally agreed that all screenplays are blueprints more than literature. Input and change is accepted and expected, because film is a collaborative effort. If a director changes the words in a scene he isn't making the new dialogue up in a vacuum, he's using the writer's origianl scene as a springboard. You don't get full writing credit for doing something like that. You do get some sort of credit if you do that to a substantial portion of the script. And the Writers Guild os extremely happy to help you get your proper credit. They are not in the business of stopping someone's name from getting on the screen just because they're not a Writers Guild member -- that's silly. That's HOW you get into the union -- by getting a credit.

 

[modest mouse]

I would guess that Norton was tooting his own horn a bit and Lipton loves to put actors on a pedestal so he went with it.

Great answers Dixons. Thanks.

 

[perks]

ok, cool. Thank you.

You've been very informative.

It would be quite sad if he was just being a bitch-assed whiner. I appreciate his talent.

He's pretty easy on the eyes too.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Would editing out the majority of the screenplay to include only the dialogue that one person wrote matter in the credit?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you asked here, but no screenplay is "only dialogue". As I said, there is structure, arc, theme, not to mention description, action, camera movement, etc. There is a LOT of work that goes into writing a screenplay. A lot more than just coming up with "shit to say".

 

[Lasher]

It would be quite sad if he was just being a bitch-assed whiner. I appreciate his talent.

I saw a thing on the making of American History X, apparently he does have that reputation.

But that's only what I know from the TeeVee. So I could be wrong.

 

[perks]

I would guess that Norton was tooting his own horn a bit and Lipton loves to put actors on a pedestal so he went with it.

Great answers Dixons. Thanks.

You know, I would think that too, but Lipton is the one that brought it up, about him writing it, and then Norton said yes, and then Lipton got a bit pushy making a point to mention the thing about being shafted on the credit. Otherwise, I would have just thought the same thing you did. But the way the information came out made me question the process.

 

[perks]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you asked here, but no screenplay is "only dialogue". As I said, there is structure, arc, theme, not to mention description, action, camera movement, etc. There is a LOT of work that goes into writing a screenplay. A lot more than just coming up with "shit to say".

You're right, that was my ignorance showing. I really don't know much about the industry at all, and my statement wasn't well thought out.

 

[perks]

I saw a thing on the making of American History X, apparently he does have that reputation.

But that's only what I know from the TeeVee. So I could be wrong.

That's unfortunate, do you remember where you saw the "making" show?

 

[modest mouse]

You know, I would think that too, but Lipton is the one that brought it up, about him writing it, and then Norton said yes, and then Lipton got a bit pushy making a point to mention the thing about being shafted on the credit. Otherwise, I would have just thought the same thing you did. But the way the information came out made me question the process.

Perkster, me thinks Lipton has a good idea what the actor wants to have broguth up in the interview long before they hit the stage. This isnt investigative reports, ya know?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Generally plays are considered "literature", and the directors and actors are merely interpreters of the playwright's work, and the playwright is considered the only "Creator" of the play. (The actor "creates" the illusion of life on stage and the director "creates" a style to present the work, but the actual story, dialogue, theme and characters are the "creation" of the writer only.) I love theatre, where the writer is God.

Film doesn't work that way. Whereas lighting and direction and sets help accent a play's themes, in film the editing, lighting and direction often create those themes. Film is a collaborative creation between the writer, the producer, the editor, the cinematographer, the director, and, sometimes, the actors. So "credit" can often be a murky thing thing dole out.

 

[Lasher]

That's unfortunate, do you remember where you saw the "making" show?

I'm pretty sure it was on IFC. Probably was on about 6 months or so ago.

 

[Guest]

 

[perks]

Perkster, me thinks Lipton has a good idea what the actor wants to have broguth up in the interview long before they hit the stage. This isnt investigative reports, ya know?

yeah, you're probably right. I'm a bit naive when it comes to stuff like that. Probably why I enjoy it so much.


Dixon, thanks for that walk through. It gives me a bit more info to work with when I watch things.


Thanks Lasher, I'll have to do a search for it, to see if I can find the transcript or something.

Hiya LL, long time.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Fricative Hell? That's a new one.

 

[Lasher]

Thanks Lasher, I'll have to do a search for it, to see if I can find the transcript or something.

If it helps you search, the focus of the piece was on Tony Kaye and how he was over his head in directing his first feature length film. The part about Norton came out because of the difficulties between him and Kaye.

 

[perks]

If it helps you search, the focus of the piece was on Tony Kaye and how he was over his head in directing his first feature length film. The part about Norton came out because of the difficulties between him and Kaye.

thank you. Did you like that movie?

Do you remember if he was having issue with Kaye because Kaye was structuring him? What I gleaned from him last night, is that I think he really likes to do things his way, and people that let him do things way, and if they try to structure him, or in his eyes "hold him back" he balks. But what do I know for a one hour, prestaged program?

 

[Guest]

 

[Lasher]

thank you. Did you like that movie?

Do you remember if he was having issue with Kaye because Kaye was structuring him?

Surprisingly enough I haven't seen it yet. Heard too many confilicting views when it was out and I just haven't caught it on cable yet.

I think the issue was similar to what you describe. If I remember where Norton had tried to back out of doing the movie so he wasn't happy to begin with. Then he wasn't happy about working with a director that hadn't done anything longer than an MTV video previously, and Norton I think expected to have more control over the process.

OHHH!! LOL... I just remembered where I saw this now. It was actually a piece that was on AMC before it went balls up. The show was on films getting Alan Smithee director credits... Here's a link to the program on imbd.com:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0279641

 

[perks]

ohhh, thank you!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Fine. Thanks.

I cut all the "Guhs" and "Duhs", not just because it's annoying for the actor, but because it makes the actual screenplay harder to read. Your eye should fly down the page. A line like

GERRY
So, um, are you going to eat that hamburger?

reads better like this:

GERRY
(eyeing the burger)
You gonna eat that?

You figure the actor and the director are going play around with this line on the set anyway. A screenwriter's job is to make the "blueprint" as readable as possible. This applies even if you're writing brilliant dialogue. Cut out the "umms" and "Guhs" and "Sos", unless you absolutely MUST have them, in which case everything in moderation.